Paper detail

Approximate Pure Nash Equilibria in Weighted Congestion Games: Existence, Efficient Computation, and Structure

We consider structural and algorithmic questions related to the Nash dynamics of weighted congestion games. In weighted congestion games with linear latency functions, the existence of (pure Nash) equilibria is guaranteed by potential function arguments. Unfortunately, this proof of existence is inefficient and computing equilibria is such games is a {\sf PLS}-hard problem. The situation gets worse when superlinear latency functions come into play; in this case, the Nash dynamics of the game may contain cycles and equilibria may not even exist. Given these obstacles, we consider approximate equilibria as alternative solution concepts. Do such equilibria exist? And if so, can we compute them efficiently? We provide positive answers to both questions for weighted congestion games with polynomial latency functions by exploiting an "approximation" of such games by a new class of potential games that we call $Ψ$-games. This allows us to show that these games have $d!$-approximate equilibria, where $d$ is the maximum degree of the latency functions. Our main technical contribution is an efficient algorithm for computing O(1)-approximate equilibria when $d$ is a constant. For games with linear latency functions, the approximation guarantee is $\frac{3+\sqrt{5}}{2}+O(γ)$ for arbitrarily small $γ>0$; for latency functions with maximum degree $d\geq 2$, it is $d^{2d+o(d)}$. The running time is polynomial in the number of bits in the representation of the game and $1/γ$. As a byproduct of our techniques, we also show the following structural statement for weighted congestion games with polynomial latency functions of maximum degree $d\geq 2$: polynomially-long sequences of best-response moves from any initial state to a $d^{O(d^2)}$-approximate equilibrium exist and can be efficiently identified in such games as long as $d$ is constant.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.